Forensic Audit Panel: Two Letters To The FT

First, John Biggs AM:

Sir, It is to be expected that any incoming administration will want to define its own priorities and differentiate itself from its predecessor. It is also entirely reasonable to try to learn from past events, investigate what could have been done differently and examine how processes can be improved ("London audit panel ‘horrified’ ”, News Digest, June 9). Politicians on all sides on the Assembly have no problem with this. Indeed, we would welcome an authoritative, objective assessment.

Readers should be clear, however, that the panel appointed by Boris Johnson and headed by Patience Wheatcroft is not an impartial or forensic "audit panel". It is simply a group of Conservative party politicians and supporters hand-picked by the mayor without any pretence of open process. Any findings or conclusions it draws will need to be viewed in this light.

Today, Deputy Barnes responds:

Sir, The forensic audit panel appointed by Boris Johnson, the new mayor of London, is a five-strong team of highly professional people, including Andrew Gordon, the independent head of investigations within the forensic services group at Pricewaterhouse Coopers. The panel is not a “group of Conservative party politicians and supporters”, as John Biggs suggests (Letters, June 13).

But Richard! Sir! Does the remainder of the panel not comprise Edward Lister, Conservative leader of Wandsworth Council and Stephen Greenhalgh, Conservative leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council along with businessman Patrick Frederick and former Sunday Telegraph editor Patience Wheatcroft, neither of whom are thought to be members of Socialist Action? If Mr Biggs was guilty of promiscuous use of the word "group" where Andrew Gordon is concerned, have you not been downright pornographic in your deployment of the term "professional"?